The Tax Cuts

Bingo. The key here is to get as much money back into middle class taxpayers' pockets as possible. For example, suppose a family of 4 with a combined income of $60K needs a new minivan. The extra cash from the tax cut can help the down payment on a new Honda Odyssey.

 

The main problem I have with the tax cuts is that the ones for the rich were pretty much permanant while the ones for the poor and middle class end this year.

 

Of course he says that but does his voting record in the senate reflect a pro-tax cut candidate?

 

Once again, I'm not rich (I don't even have a full time job right now!) and my wife and I are about to sell a second house that we have. It's a very small house worth about 40K. But the surrounding land that it's adjacent to is worth about $100K. We're going to have to pay capital gains taxes on our profit.

Capital gains tax cuts do NOT "almost exclusively" help the rich.

 

In an attempt to put a rant (my rant) in the right thread, I'm taking some quotes from the Obama thread...

I'm curious what the top 1% is, I'm not sure I'm there, but I'm probably not middle class, either. The source of the funding isn't the point. I'm applying for grad school loans because they're giving away money right now and that makes more sense for me from an investment standpoint and with regard what I want to do after graduation.

As for what Kerry is saying, it's a bit of a subtle argument I suppose. He will not say OUTRIGHT that people are undeserving of their salaries, but by saying I don't deserve the tax cut, he is saying implicitly that I don't deserve the money. It's ridiculous that AFTER the tax cuts my average tax rate is still over 30% BEFORE taking into account what my employer pays on my behalf for SS. And someone thinks it's okay to take MORE from me because I don't contribute enough? That's unacceptable to me.

A quick look at the numbers shows that $6600 over 30 years on the $17K average is about 2%. Not a huge deal, especially compared with the impact higher tax rates would have on my income over the same period.

Which Repubs are supporting that proposal? The article...err...press release...makes a reference to "likely Republican backing" for a proposal that is being advocated by lenders.

Did a quickie Google search on it and came across these two links:

http://pirg.org/highered/highered.asp?id2=13129&id3=highered&
"Already, legislation to eliminate the fixed rate has been introduced by Congressman Rob Andrews (D-NJ), H.R. 4102, and the same proposal may be included in a package to be introduced by House Republicans, as well. "

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/06/07/student.loans.ap/
"The proposed change has split both Democrats and Republicans on the House Education and Workforce Committee. Chairman John Boehner, R.-Ohio, and Rep. Rob Andrews, D.-New Jersey, have introduced different versions, but others members oppose the proposal. "

Sounds to me like the a-holes supporting that proposal are both Dems and Repubs. Hell, it's being introduced by a Dem in the Senate. Who should I vote for again?

 

It's around 400k per year, give or take.

I've gone over this many times in many different threads; first off your "average tax rate" is a highly vague concept that is difficult to talk about in any context; second, your tax rate (including everything -state, local etc) is also the lowest in the Western world, easily; third, even with the 'unjust' 30% number -- we still don't have enough to cover our debts -- so do with that information what you will.

FIrst, I thought you didn't know what your tax rates were...second, you presuppose that tax increases are being used solely to fund student loan programs.

Considering the bleak outlook of our fiscal policy, that's a rather naive assumption -- but anyway, you're saying your ok with students having to fork over an extra part of the pie, and that more barriers are erected for student loans? That seems at odds with your previous rant.

It is the Boehner-Mckeon bill, they are both Republican members of the house committee on Higher Education. A study of thei consequences by the nonpartisan CRS of the removal of fixed rate loan consolidation is available here:
http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/photos/crsconsolidation.pdf

Uhh, no, it's not, not at all. You seem to have misinterpreted what has occurred. Sometimes more than just random googling is needed.

Boehner and Mckeon, two republican congressman from Ohio and CA, introduced the College Access and Opportunity Act, which is the one that is more favorable to lenders overall and that is the subject of what I referred to.

Meanwhile, congressman Andrews introduced a competing bill, the Access and Equity in Higher Education Act-- which has about zero chance of maiking it through the republican House, or so I would suppose-- more as a point of contrast than anything else. But if you're interested, read more about the two bills and the differences here:
http://www.sasfaa.org/docs/newsletters/200406/page6.html

The key provision, the elimination of fixed rate consolidation loans is highlighted in the beginning of the above link.

Look, it's not really up for debate that Republicans have historically tried to limit student loans or otherwise make them more favorable to private lenders. That's just the truth. But anyway, as to the larger point, you can lose sleep over all the tax dollars that Kerry may or may not take away from you; a more immediate (and, more important to the rest of us) problem is the long term fiscal crisis that the current administration has enmeshed us in so very deeply -- which is far more likely to have a significant impact on your well being.

 

1.) Average tax rate is a vague concept, fine. It still sucks that I spent about 5 hours a day to pay my taxes.

2.) I'm fully aware we are lower than others. To me, that's a more vague concept than an average tax rate. Services, economic growth, vacation, etc are fairly different, so I don't see that as a relevant comparison

3.) We don't have enough to cover our spending (not debts, right? or am I misunderstanding?). We can argue forever if that's a spending issue or a tax revenue issue. Likely answer is that it's a little of both. My point was, though, many Democrats have isolated me by saying that my contributions to the economy are insufficient and implying that I am basically stealing my own money at the expense of people who earn less than me.

I know my tax rates. I didn't know who qualified as top 1%. That's pretty different.

Anyway, I didn't presuppose anything about tax increases funding student loan programs. The numbers I threw out there were a recreation of info from the article you linked to. It said something along the lines of the avg student debt is $17K, and if loan consolidation options are taken away, it will cost $6-something K in interest costs over the life of the loan. On a 30 year loan, that's just a 2% fluctuation in the interest rate. I'm just stating that the $6K aint much when looked at over such a long period. I don't know all the assumptions they used in their calculation, but it doesn't sound as terrible as it was intended to in the press release.

I'm not saying I'm ok with students forking over more of the pie. What I am saying, is this: Going to school generally increases your income. Increasing the marginal tax rates will have a more adverse impact on my disposable income after graduation than taking away my option to consolidate student loans. One group is looking to raise federal revenues through changing the student loan programs. Another group is looking to raise federal revenues by changing the tax structure. Over a comparable period, my take home income is reduced more by changes in the tax structure than in student loan programs. Does that make more sense? Or am I still unclear?

A random googling may not have told me the whole story. That's fine, I was just trying to get a little more info on it adn that seemed like a decent start. Whether Andrews' bill makes it through or not is not really the point. After a quick look at the site you provided, his bill does look more friendly overall, but he's still looking to take away that option, also.

Thanks for all the info, though. Good stuff.

 

I'll say it explicitly, if you like. You don't deserve a tax break. If you are close to the top percentile tax bracket, I'm willing to bet you can scrimp, save, struggle to find a way to live off a few hundred grand a year. You're in the money, and yet you want to rip off the student loan program for a slightly better interest rate? Student loans are meant for those who can't afford to go to school, who want to better themselves and, in doing so, benefit the society that allowed them that chance. Here you are whining about government spending on programs, largely for the poor and working class, when you yourself are cashing in on that largesse? That's unacceptable to me. I'll say again: you don't deserve a tax break.

 

I missed this portion...

I fully believe you are correct with that assertion.

The long-term fiscal crisis that we are in isn't due to a reduction in tax rates. It's due to a reduction in tax revenues...which is more a result of the economic downturn...and spending. Spending is one of my biggest problems with W, but I haven't seen anything out of Kerry that makes me believe he'll spend less.

 

Estimates that I have seen from the CBO attributed something in the order of half of a 03 and 04's yearly deficits (150 b or something around there) to GWB's explicitly, that may change as differing portions of ithem are phased in and out.

Nor had you seen anything out of Clinton that would make you believe that at this point in 1992 -- but when one party controls the white house and another controls congress, that type of thing tends to happen.

 

I ain't scamming anybody man. I'm borrowing from private companies, not the government. I'm not cashing in on that "largesse". Interest rates are at a ridiculously low level. Borrowing from financial institutions isn't as cheap as the government, but it's still damn cheap.

I never said I was struggling to eat. ...[edit: pointless pissing contest deleted]...but you better believe I deserve my salary dammit. Me and my team sacrifice our time to keep companies from getting liquidated and save the jobs of people who work 7.25 hours a day. I deserve every penny I earn.

Never be so sure of yourself. Especially with limited information.

 

Unsubsidized FFEL? My mistake. I assumed otherwise, and withdraw the above. But please, help me understand your mindset about taxation; the different iterations of it I usually see I cannot grasp. What I don’t get is the generally conservative sense of entitlement to every penny. I feel I earn every nickel I find sweeping up at McDonald’s. But I also understand that I live in a world so glorious that I am allowed the good fortune to be able to make minimum wage at McDonald’s, that such a thing as fast food name tags exist, and that I live in a country where so much of a surfeit of wealth exists that people don’t bother to pick up their dropped spare change. I owe something for that. I also don’t get run over by the cars when I cross Broadway. I owe something for the traffic light, for the street being paved. I owe something for the FDA banning quackery, preventing me from dropping dead trying to cure a toothache. I owe something for not getting mugged while walking through the park, for police protection, for a strong military. I don’t deserve every penny I make. Nay, I don’t want it.

What gets me is that you live in a country where you are able to pull all-nighters to clients that reward you so handsomely. That, whatever business you’re in, you’re able to get your hands on the technology required to do your job, that the business and societal infrastructure, the system of supply and demand, exists to have created your job in the first place. I think you owe something for that, too.

I also think that a progressively stepped tax system works best, because the very wealthy have, through either old-fashioned elbow grease or the good fortune of their old-fashioned forefathers’ elbow grease, take the most out of society. The wealthy are far more likely to need the security and stability that the police provide, to protect all that wealth. The wealthy are for more likely to use the legal system to settle disputes. The wealthy are far more likely to run for and be elected to public office, thereby instituting laws which benefit the wealthy (see: GWB’s tax cuts). In the past half-century, the top tax bracket went from around 90% closer to 30%. I think the answer’s somewhere in the middle, but what’s fair?

Studies show that, once the necessities of life are attained, beyond a certain point increased wealth does not increase happiness. How much opulence does one require? We’ve won the lottery already in where we’re born. You’re going to grad school; I’m taking the LSAT in a couple months. If I am fortunate enough to in a couple years make as much as you do currently, I’d like to think that I’d be so grateful that I’d gladly pay my tithe, be it 32 or 42 percent.

 

Edit: if possible, I'd like to retract my urine from above pointless pissing contest.